5 ms·

There are open protocols like Matrix which are superior to Slack in that they are decentralised, have support for full e2e encryption, entirely self-hostable, d

by cyphar 9y ago

There are open protocols like Matrix which are superior to Slack in that they are decentralised, have support for full e2e encryption, entirely self-hostable, don't store your data outside of the home-servers used for communication, etc. Riot is a perfectly fine client (looks just like every other chat application), and there are weechat plugins as well as native applications as well. Open protocols exist, and people are using them, but that doesn't change that Slack dropping support for bridges is just typically disappointing. Matrix also has full Slack/IRC/whatever-else-you-want bridges (which you can stack to talk between IRC and Slack). So there's that. However, this is simply untrue: > Dominate the world using open protocols, then the walled garden companies will follow. When you are Slack Inc and the only differentiator you have is that you are in control of how chat works, why on earth would you switch to a protocol that you don't have full control over?

dfabulich 9y ago
Slack initially integrated with IRC and XMPP because they were more popular than Slack. Now that Slack is much bigger than all IRC and XMPP traffic combined, the integration is no longer worth its weight in code. If Matrix were overwhelmingly more popular than Slack, they would integrate with Matrix. But Matrix isn't more popular than Slack. (Matrix isn't even as popular as IRC, despite being a better product than IRC, as far as I can see.)
- cyphar 9y ago
  Matrix has Slack bridges, so "integration with Slack" isn't a problem from the Matrix side. But more importantly, I wasn't suggesting that Slack should integrate with Matrix, it was that open protocols do exist and some are better than Slack in specific ways.
- MereInterest 9y ago
  > Slack initially integrated with IRC and XMPP because they were more popular than Slack. Bait > Now that Slack is much bigger than all IRC and XMPP traffic combined, the integration is no longer worth its weight in code. Switch
  - signa11 9y ago
    sorry, but i don't agree. this is a classic EEE i.e. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish maneuver. which is what, afaik, the gp was trying to say. edit-001: fmt changes.
    - MereInterest 9y ago
      I would agree that it is clearly EEE, but would argue that it is also a bait and switch. My intention was to rephrase the gp's comment, which I felt was unfairly positive toward this general practice.
    - arbie 9y ago
      > edit-001: ... Are you planning very many edits?
evv 9y ago
> When you are Slack Inc and the only differentiator you have is that you are in control of how chat works, why on earth would you switch to a protocol that you don't have full control over? The GP is calling for a slack competitor to launch and gain popularity with the help of an open protocol. Once the pendulum swings back towards openness, Slack would be forced to adopt it to stay relevant. If you value your freedom, use the open source RocketChat, instead of Slack.
- cyphar 9y ago
  The majority of my comment was talking about Matrix, which is an open protocol with free software server/client implementations.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Yeah, but they're not that different. They use their own protocol and their flagship client is a web/electron app.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      When you put it like that, sure. But Matrix is federated (sort of like IRC but it's "open federation" in that any room can be shared between home-servers) and has e2e encryption. Rocketchat has neither of those features (though it is nice and simple if you just wanna throw up a chat server at a company -- which is the main purpose of the project as I understand). If you want to talk with other people then I would recommend Matrix.
LeoPanthera 9y ago
I really wanted to like Matrix but it expects you to independently verify the keys for each device every person is using. If they get a new device, new keys to verify. This is crazy. The keys should be per person, not per device.
- cyphar 9y ago
  Matrix has an identity key that is shared between devices (hence why you can link up the sub-devices). The reason for having per-device keys used for e2ee that you can verify is so that you don't automatically trust new devices if a users' account is compromised. Each new login creates new e2e keys that only persist with the session. In terms of UX this system is currently pretty ugly, but the actual concept makes sense. If you want to just trust that the other users' account hasn't been compromised (which is what having a system designed around a single per-user key would effectively mean) then you can just blindly accept all keys, because each device key is first registered with the identity service and signed (requiring access to the account's identity key). To be clear, there are several hiccups with e2e at the moment, but they are being worked on (from what I can tell).
  - bb88 9y ago
    > In terms of UX this system is currently pretty ugly, but the actual concept makes sense. This seems like a trivial gain for lousy UX, since it's possible the account and the device is compromised.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      They are working on the UX side of things. I disagree that it's a trivial gain. Signal works in the same way, except that they only really support having a single device (that's where the safety number changing warning comes from). Having per-device keys also means that the server cannot decrypt your messages (because the identity key is not used for communication, it's just used to register new keys that clients will encrypt their messages to). Having a global decryption key stored on the server would be a less secure design.
- 9y ago
hillna 9y ago
Is there a weechat plugin for Matrix that currently supports e2e encryption? Last I checked, it was using an older version of the encryption that was not compatible with recent Matrix servers. I would love to use weechat for Matrix, as I'm not a big fan of the Riot client.
- Arathorn 9y ago
  Not yet. The older version hasn't been updated to the version which Matrix actually uses these days, sadly.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
"There are open protocols like Matrix which are superior to Slack in that they are decentralised, have support for full e2e encryption, entirely self-hostable, don't store your data outside of the home-servers used for communication, etc." How does that translate to superior communication between my coworkers and I? Most of that stuff does not matter to people.
- cyphar 9y ago
  My point was that the protocol is superior to Slack in general. Whether you have a use for those features is a different point -- those features are clearly already useful to quite a few people. But to answer your question, self-hosting would be useful in making sure that internal communication isn't shared with a third-party. e2e could also be useful (depending on what you work on) if you want to just use the public servers. Not to mention that you can use Matrix like bog-standard instant messaging (replacing the need for other messaging applications through bridges), where those sorts of features are also useful.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    "My point was that the protocol is superior to Slack in general." But that's not the point you made. For it to be better in general, it has to improve the way people communicate.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      > But that's not the point you made. I'm pretty sure it is the point I made when I said: "There are open protocols like Matrix which are superior to Slack". Maybe it was badly worded, but the original comment was talking about open protocols being not as good as Slack's protocol (which is why they have their own and aren't use open protocols). My response explained that there are open protocols that are better (in that they have more features), and that Slack not using them is not evidence that they aren't better (rather it's an indication that Slack won't give up the one thing it has full control over). > For it to be better in general, it has to improve the way people communicate. I'm not sure I agree that's the only requirement for something to be "better in general". You would probably agree with me that HTTPS is "better in general" than HTTP. Why? To users there is no practical difference other than it being more secure -- which you've ruled out as being something users care about. Things can still be better while being transparent to most users, while the extra features are useful for a subset of users. Not every protocol improvement needs to revolutionise how people use a particular technology.
ex3ndr 9y ago
While i like folks from Matrix i actually tried to integrate my messaging platform with Matrix and failed. Matrix API is sooooo sophisticated, they are doing something to simplify this, but all this at alpha stage and too opinionated to use it universally. Even XMPP is better in terms easy of use without mentioning IRC (that is dumb simple).

by cyphar 9y ago

dfabulich 9y ago

Slack initially integrated with IRC and XMPP because they were more popular than Slack. Now that Slack is much bigger than all IRC and XMPP traffic combined, the integration is no longer worth its weight in code. If Matrix were overwhelmingly more popular than Slack, they would integrate with Matrix. But Matrix isn't more popular than Slack. (Matrix isn't even as popular as IRC, despite being a better product than IRC, as far as I can see.)

cyphar 9y ago
Matrix has Slack bridges, so "integration with Slack" isn't a problem from the Matrix side. But more importantly, I wasn't suggesting that Slack should integrate with Matrix, it was that open protocols do exist and some are better than Slack in specific ways.
MereInterest 9y ago
> Slack initially integrated with IRC and XMPP because they were more popular than Slack. Bait > Now that Slack is much bigger than all IRC and XMPP traffic combined, the integration is no longer worth its weight in code. Switch
- signa11 9y ago
  sorry, but i don't agree. this is a classic EEE i.e. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish maneuver. which is what, afaik, the gp was trying to say. edit-001: fmt changes.
  - MereInterest 9y ago
    I would agree that it is clearly EEE, but would argue that it is also a bait and switch. My intention was to rephrase the gp's comment, which I felt was unfairly positive toward this general practice.
  - arbie 9y ago
    > edit-001: ... Are you planning very many edits?

evv 9y ago

> When you are Slack Inc and the only differentiator you have is that you are in control of how chat works, why on earth would you switch to a protocol that you don't have full control over? The GP is calling for a slack competitor to launch and gain popularity with the help of an open protocol. Once the pendulum swings back towards openness, Slack would be forced to adopt it to stay relevant. If you value your freedom, use the open source RocketChat, instead of Slack.

cyphar 9y ago
The majority of my comment was talking about Matrix, which is an open protocol with free software server/client implementations.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Yeah, but they're not that different. They use their own protocol and their flagship client is a web/electron app.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    When you put it like that, sure. But Matrix is federated (sort of like IRC but it's "open federation" in that any room can be shared between home-servers) and has e2e encryption. Rocketchat has neither of those features (though it is nice and simple if you just wanna throw up a chat server at a company -- which is the main purpose of the project as I understand). If you want to talk with other people then I would recommend Matrix.

LeoPanthera 9y ago

I really wanted to like Matrix but it expects you to independently verify the keys for each device every person is using. If they get a new device, new keys to verify. This is crazy. The keys should be per person, not per device.

cyphar 9y ago
Matrix has an identity key that is shared between devices (hence why you can link up the sub-devices). The reason for having per-device keys used for e2ee that you can verify is so that you don't automatically trust new devices if a users' account is compromised. Each new login creates new e2e keys that only persist with the session. In terms of UX this system is currently pretty ugly, but the actual concept makes sense. If you want to just trust that the other users' account hasn't been compromised (which is what having a system designed around a single per-user key would effectively mean) then you can just blindly accept all keys, because each device key is first registered with the identity service and signed (requiring access to the account's identity key). To be clear, there are several hiccups with e2e at the moment, but they are being worked on (from what I can tell).
- bb88 9y ago
  > In terms of UX this system is currently pretty ugly, but the actual concept makes sense. This seems like a trivial gain for lousy UX, since it's possible the account and the device is compromised.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    They are working on the UX side of things. I disagree that it's a trivial gain. Signal works in the same way, except that they only really support having a single device (that's where the safety number changing warning comes from). Having per-device keys also means that the server cannot decrypt your messages (because the identity key is not used for communication, it's just used to register new keys that clients will encrypt their messages to). Having a global decryption key stored on the server would be a less secure design.
9y ago

hillna 9y ago

Is there a weechat plugin for Matrix that currently supports e2e encryption? Last I checked, it was using an older version of the encryption that was not compatible with recent Matrix servers. I would love to use weechat for Matrix, as I'm not a big fan of the Riot client.

Arathorn 9y ago
Not yet. The older version hasn't been updated to the version which Matrix actually uses these days, sadly.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

"There are open protocols like Matrix which are superior to Slack in that they are decentralised, have support for full e2e encryption, entirely self-hostable, don't store your data outside of the home-servers used for communication, etc." How does that translate to superior communication between my coworkers and I? Most of that stuff does not matter to people.

cyphar 9y ago
My point was that the protocol is superior to Slack in general. Whether you have a use for those features is a different point -- those features are clearly already useful to quite a few people. But to answer your question, self-hosting would be useful in making sure that internal communication isn't shared with a third-party. e2e could also be useful (depending on what you work on) if you want to just use the public servers. Not to mention that you can use Matrix like bog-standard instant messaging (replacing the need for other messaging applications through bridges), where those sorts of features are also useful.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  "My point was that the protocol is superior to Slack in general." But that's not the point you made. For it to be better in general, it has to improve the way people communicate.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    > But that's not the point you made. I'm pretty sure it is the point I made when I said: "There are open protocols like Matrix which are superior to Slack". Maybe it was badly worded, but the original comment was talking about open protocols being not as good as Slack's protocol (which is why they have their own and aren't use open protocols). My response explained that there are open protocols that are better (in that they have more features), and that Slack not using them is not evidence that they aren't better (rather it's an indication that Slack won't give up the one thing it has full control over). > For it to be better in general, it has to improve the way people communicate. I'm not sure I agree that's the only requirement for something to be "better in general". You would probably agree with me that HTTPS is "better in general" than HTTP. Why? To users there is no practical difference other than it being more secure -- which you've ruled out as being something users care about. Things can still be better while being transparent to most users, while the extra features are useful for a subset of users. Not every protocol improvement needs to revolutionise how people use a particular technology.

ex3ndr 9y ago

While i like folks from Matrix i actually tried to integrate my messaging platform with Matrix and failed. Matrix API is sooooo sophisticated, they are doing something to simplify this, but all this at alpha stage and too opinionated to use it universally. Even XMPP is better in terms easy of use without mentioning IRC (that is dumb simple).